Construction of a Tangible VR-Based Interactive System for Intergenerational Learning
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. Background
1.2. Research Motivation and Issues
1.3. Literature Review
1.3.1. Physical and Mental Health of the Elderly
1.3.2. Intergenerational Learning
1.3.3. Virtual Reality
1.3.4. Tangible User Interfaces
1.4. Brief Description of the Proposed Research and Paper Organization
2. Methods
2.1. Interviews with Experts
2.2. Prototype Development
2.3. Questionnaire
2.4. Interviews with Participants
3. Results
3.1. Interviews with Experts
3.2. System Design
3.2.1. The Concept of Design of Intergenerational Learning Activities
3.2.2. System Architecture
3.2.3. Main Technologies
- (1)
- Gesture Detection
Algorithm 1. Gesture Detection Algorithm. |
|
- (2)
- Sound Sensing
Algorithm 2. Sound Detection and Instrument Beating Verification. |
|
- (3)
- Types of gestures designed for generating animations
- (4)
- System Flow of Intergenerational Learning via Puppetry
Algorithm 3. State Transitions of the System Flow of the Proposed System. |
if the elapse time te in this state ≥ 2 s and the cycle time tc < 120 s, then follow flow E1 to get into the GAME state; //Keep playing the game. else follow flow R1 to get into the RESULT state. //Go to end the game.
if the elapse time te in this state ≥ 2 s and the cycle time tc < 120 s, then follow flow E2 to get into the GAME state; //Keep playing the game. else follow flow R2 to get into the Result state. //Go to end the game.
if the elapse time te in this state ≥ 2 s and the cycle time tc < 120 s, then follow flow E3 to get into the GAME state; //Keep playing the game. else follow flow R3 to get into the Result state. //Go to end the game.
|
3.2.4. Visual Design
3.2.5. An Example of Results of Running the Proposed “Recall the Play” System
3.3. Experimental Design
3.4. Questionnaire Survey Results
3.4.1. Designing Processes for Testing the Properties of the Collected Data
- Adequacy of the collected data—verified by the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) test and Bartlett’s test of sphericity using the SPSS package.
- Latent dimensions (scales) of the questions used in collecting the data—found by exploratory factor analysis (EFA) via the principal component analysis (PCA) method and the varimax method with Kaiser normalization using the SPSS package.
- Reliability of the collected data—verified by using the Cronbach’s α coefficient values yielded by the EFA process.
- Suitability of the model structure of the data setup based on the found question dimensions (scales)—verified by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using the AMOS package.
- Validity of the collected questionnaire data—verified by the parameter values yielded by the EFA and CFA processes.
3.4.2. Testing the Adequacy of the Collected Data
3.4.3. Finding the Latent Dimensions (Scales) of the Questions from the Collected Data
3.4.4. Verifying the Reliability of the Collected Data Using the Cronbach’s α Coefficients
3.4.5. Verification of the Applicability of the Structural Model Established with the Question Dimensions (scales)
3.4.6. Verification of the Validity of the Collected Questionnaire Data
3.4.7. Summary of Analyses Based on the Content of the Collected Questionnaire Data
- (A)
- Analysis of the Indicator of GPIC
- During the interaction, the grandparents and grandchildren were friendly and kind to each other.
- During the interaction, the grandparents and grandchildren recognized each other’s strengths.
- During the interaction, the grandparents and grandchildren would mostly restrain themselves, reserve their own opinions, and keep silent when they disagreed with each other.
- Nevertheless, it was also found that when the two parties had different opinions, they would still acknowledge each other’s advantages and friendliness during the interaction.
- (B)
- Analysis of the Elderly’s Attitudes
- During the interaction, the grandparents were psychologically reliable to the children.
- During the interaction, the grandparents were kind, smart, and happy as felt by the children psychologically.
- During the interaction, the grandparents were kind, smart, and happy as felt by the children cognitively.
- During the interaction, the children had a positive psychological and cognitive perception of the elderly.
3.4.8. Evaluation of System Effectiveness from the Perspectives of GPIC and the Elderly’s Attitudes
3.5. Analysis of Interviews with Participants
- (1)
- Interview results for the aspect of system operation (DO):
- (a)
- After playing the drums and manipulating the puppets with VR gestures, participants found the operations of the gong and the drum more intuitive and easier to understand.
- (b)
- Most participants were not puppeteers, and gestures that were too professional were not easy for those inexperienced to perform.
- (2)
- Interview results for the aspect of feeling of experiencing the system (FEEL):
- (a)
- The young participants preferred interactions with more sound and light effects or with more variations.
- (b)
- The children preferred operating the gong and the drum to performing VR actions.
- (3)
- Interview results for the aspect of communication of emotion and experience (KNOW):
- (a)
- Older experienced participants learned puppetry more quickly than those without puppetry experiences, and they could impart to their grandchildren more knowledge about puppetry.
- (b)
- In the intergenerational learning activities, the grandparents and grandchildren would increase the exchange of mutual learning experiences.
- (1)
- The participants knew how to operate the system, since it was easy to play the drum and the gong.
- (2)
- The participants did not know how to make the gestures initially, but they succeeded later after operating the system for a while.
- (3)
- The participants felt that it was easy to use the interface, as the scenes and characters were lifelike to a degree.
3.6. Summary of Experimental Results
4. Discussions
4.1. Findings of System-Development Principles
- (1)
- intergenerational activity themes should be interesting to both generations;
- (2)
- the interface should be as simple as possible;
- (3)
- the operations of the system should be intuitive;
- (4)
- the performance of the system should include slightly stimulating ways of interaction.
4.2. Findings from Questionnaire Survey Results
- (1)
- The children preferred active interaction, such as playing the drum and the gong, while the older participants preferred simple and easy interactions.
- (2)
- The interviews revealed that introducing VR into activities with traditional themes was more attractive to the children.
- (3)
- The VR system combined with ideal themes drove more elderly people to participate in the activities.
- (4)
- The older users expressed that they would be more pleased to join in the activities as young users influenced them.
- (5)
- The elderly and children had positive feelings regarding each other’s attitudes when experiencing the system.
4.3. Findings about Effectiveness of Technology-Based Intergenerational Learning
- (1)
- Intergenerational learning activities featuring VR and TUIs can encourage the young to participate in the learning activitiesBased on the interviews with participants and the observation of their experiences, most children would step toward, pick up, stare at, and study the head-mounted display, and say they want to have a try. Some children told the interviewer that they wondered what was in the VR, showing that the introduction of VR and gesture manipulations could indeed arouse the willingness of the younger generation to participate.
- (2)
- The VR-based interaction system with the two generations’ shared experiences had positive effects on the emotional communication between the two generationsAccording to the results of the questionnaire survey and interviews with the participants, most users gave positive comments on the proposed interactive system after experiencing it, and both generations felt happy and interested in their interactions and experiences. In addition, both generations showed positive attitudes toward each other, consistent with the findings of Souza and Grundy [6]. Through intergenerational interactions, the elderly could acquire self-confidence and positive attitudes, while the young generation could improve their self-value and obtain happiness, conducive to the accumulation of social capital of human resources and relationships.
- (3)
- Themes familiar to the older generation can enhance their willingness to adopt high-tech productsZajicek [21] found that one of the reasons elderly people reject high-tech products is the fear of damaging them in the process of learning. However, if the products are associated with the living environment of the older generation or are something with which they are familiar, they would be less anxious and more willing to enjoy high-tech products.
- (4)
- By integrating VR into intergenerational learning activities, the two generations acquire more opportunities to learn and understand each otherThe two generations guided each other in following instructions; for instance, in playing the drum or making the gestures. According to some interviewees, after participating in the activities, some elderly people shared the stories of the glove puppetry characters with their children. Similarly, several of the elderly reported that they had learned cartoon and game characters from some young participants, indicating that both generations have much more to talk about.
- (5)
- Better perceptual experiences in feeling the effects of sensors, such as sound, animation, and various special effects, can improve the two generations’ immersion in the system-experiencing processIt was found in the interviews that the users may have been less immersed in the activities due to certain problems occurring with the system, such as unclear screen tips, monotonous pictures, and unfamiliarity with the gestures. According to the participants’ comments, it was known that if such problems could be solved, the activities would be thought to be more entertaining and interesting, and the users would immerse themselves in the activities more deeply.
5. Conclusions
5.1. Summary of Major Contributions Made by This Study
5.2. Suggestions for Future Studies
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Fann, G.J.; Hsu, Y.H. Socio-economic impacts of population aging in taiwan. Taiwan Geriatr. Gerontol. 2010, 5, 149–168. [Google Scholar]
- Boström, A.K. Lifelong learning in intergenerational settings: The development of the swedish granddad program from project to national association. J. Intergener. Relatsh. 2011, 9, 293–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hall, K.W.; Batey, J.J. Children’s ideas about aging before and after an intergenerational read-aloud. Educ. Gerontol. 2008, 34, 862–870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ames, B.D.; Youatt, J.P. Intergenerational education and service programming: A model for selection and evaluation of activities. Educ. Gerontol. 1994, 20, 755–764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaplan, M.S. International programs in schools: Considerations of form and function. Int. Rev. Educ. 2002, 48, 305–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Souza, E.M.; Grundy, E. Intergenerational interaction, social capital and health: Results from a randomised controlled trial in Brazil. Soc. Sci. Med. 2007, 65, 1397–1409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Intergenerational Learning for Inclusive Societies. Available online: https://lllplatform.eu/policy-areas/intergenerational-learning-for-inclusive-societies/ (accessed on 22 March 2022).
- Ainge, D.J. Upper primary students constructing and exploring three dimensional shapes: A comparison of virtual reality with card nets. J. Educ. Comput. Res. 1996, 14, 345–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Virvou, M.; Katsionis, G. On the usability and likeability of virtual reality games for education: The case of VR-ENGAGE. Comput. Educ. 2008, 50, 154–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- MyndVR. Available online: https://www.myndvr.com/ (accessed on 4 April 2022).
- Rendever VR for Seniors. Available online: https://www.rendever.com/?hsLang=en (accessed on 4 April 2022).
- Benoit, M.; Guerchouche, R.; Petit, P.D.; Chapoulie, E.; Manera, V.; Chaurasia, G.; Drettakis, G.; Robert, P. Is it possible to use highly realistic virtual reality in the elderly? A feasibility study with image-based rendering. Neuropsychiatr. Dis. Treat. 2015, 11, 557–563. [Google Scholar]
- Manera, V.; Chapoulie, E.; Bourgeois, J.; Guerchouche, R.; David, R.; Ondrej, J.; Drettakis, G.; Robert, P. A feasibility study with image-based rendered virtual reality in patients with mild cognitive impairment and dementia. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0151487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Benckendorff, P.; Tussyadiah, I.; Scarles, C. The Role of Digital Technologies in Facilitating Intergenerational Learning in Heritage Tourism. In Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism; Springer International Publishing: Berlin, Germany, 2018; pp. 463–472. [Google Scholar]
- Meliadou, E.; Nakou, A.; Chaidi, I.; Koutsikos, L.; Giannakoulopoulos, A.; Gouscos, D.; Meimaris, M. Technology in Intergenerational Learning Research Projects in the Greek Context. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on the Elderly and New Technologies, Castello, Spain, 14 April 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Jane, B.; Robbins, J. Intergenerational learning: Grandparents teaching everyday concepts in science and technology. Asia-Pac. Forum Sci. Learn. Teach. 2007, 8, 1–18. [Google Scholar]
- Proposal for a Council Recommendation on key Competences for Life-Long Learning. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52018SC0014 (accessed on 4 April 2022).
- Kimuna, S.R.; Knox, D.; Zusman, M. College students’ perceptions about older people and aging. Educ. Gerontol. 2005, 31, 563–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, Y.S. Measures of student attitudes on aging. Educ. Gerontol. 2009, 35, 121–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Frenchs, M.; Pearl, M.; Mosher-Ashley, E. College students’ attitudes toward residential care facilities. Educ. Gerontol. 2000, 26, 583–603. [Google Scholar]
- Zajicek, M. Interface Design for Older Adults. In Proceedings of the 2001 EC/NSF Workshop on Universal Accessibility of Ubiquitous Computing: Providing for the Elderly, Alcácer do Sal, Portugal, 22 May 2001; pp. 60–65. [Google Scholar]
- Shibata, T.; Wada, K. Robot therapy: A new approach for mental healthcare of the elderly—A mini-review. Gerontology 2011, 57, 378–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chatman, E.A. The impoverished life-world of outsiders. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 1996, 47, 193–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hoff, A. Patterns of intergenerational support in grandparent-grandchild and parent-child relationships in Germany. Ageing Soc. 2007, 27, 643–665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Newman, S.; Hatton Yeo, A. Intergenerational learning and the contributions of older people. Ageing Horiz. 2008, 8, 31–39. [Google Scholar]
- The Role of Intergenerational Program in Promoting Lifelong Learning for All Ages. Available online: http://www.unesco.org/education/uie/pdf/uiestud36.pdf (accessed on 15 November 2009).
- Kyrpychenko, O.; Pushchyna, I.; Kichuk, Y.; Shevchenko, N.; Luchaninova, O.; Koval, V. Communicative competence development in teaching professional discourse in educational establishments. Int. J. Mod. Educ. Comput. Sci. 2021, 13, 16–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kuzminykh, I.; Yevdokymenko, M.; Yeremenko, O.; Lemeshko, O. Increasing teacher competence in cybersecurity using the EU security frameworks. Int. J. Mod. Educ. Comput. Sci. 2021, 13, 60–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Singh, N.; Gunjan, V.K.; Nasralla, M.M. A parametrized comparative analysis of performance between proposed adaptive and personalized tutoring system “seis tutor” with existing online tutoring system. IEEE Access 2022, 10, 39376–39386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oropilla, C.T.; Odegaard, E.E. Strengthening the call for intentional intergenerational programmes towards sustainable futures for children and families. Sustainability 2021, 13, 5564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morton Heilig. Available online: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morton_Heilig (accessed on 5 April 2022).
- Lanier, J. Virtual reality: The promise of the future. Interact. Learn. Int. 1992, 8, 275–279. [Google Scholar]
- Burdea, G.C.; Coiffet, G. Virtual Reality Technology; John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY, USA, 1993. [Google Scholar]
- Merchant, Z.; Goetz, E.T.; Cifuentes, L.; Keeney-Kennicutt, W.; Davis, T.J. Effectiveness of virtual reality-based instruction on students’ learning outcomes in K-12 and higher education: A meta-analysis. Comput. Educ. 2014, 70, 29–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nasralla, M.M. Sustainable virtual reality patient rehabilitation systems with IoT sensors using virtual smart cities. Sustainability 2021, 13, 4716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sobnath, D.; Rehman, I.U.; Nasralla, M.M. Smart Cities to Improve Mobility and Quality of Life of the Visually Impaired. In Technological Trends in Improved Mobility of the Visually Impaired; Paiva, S., Ed.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Germany, 2020; pp. 3–28. [Google Scholar]
- Davis, F.D. A Technology Acceptance Model for Empirically Testing New End-User Information Systems: Theory and Results. Ph.D. Thesis, Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Boston, MA, USA, 1985. [Google Scholar]
- Davis, F.D. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 1989, 13, 319–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Davis, F.D. User acceptance of information technology: System characteristics, user perceptions and behavioral impacts. Int. J. Man-Mach. Stud. 1993, 38, 475–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Syed Abdul, S.; Malwade, S.; Nursetyo, A.A.; Sood, M.; Bhatia, M.; Barsasella, D.; Liu, M.F.; Chang, C.-C.; Srinivasan, K.; Raja, M.; et al. Virtual reality among the elderly: A usefulness and acceptance study from Taiwan. BMC Geriatr. 2019, 19, 223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Coldham, G.; Cook, D.M. VR Usability from Elderly Cohorts: Preparatory Challenges In Overcoming Technology Rejection. In Proceedings of the National Information Technology Conference, Colombo, Sri Lanka, 14–15 September 2017; pp. 131–135. [Google Scholar]
- Ishii, H.; Ullmer, B. Tangible Bits: Towards Seamless Interfaces between People, Bits and Atoms. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors In Computing Systems, Atlanta, GA, USA, 22–27 March 1997; pp. 234–241. [Google Scholar]
- Ishii, H. Tangible Bits: Beyond Pixels. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Tangible and Embedded Interaction, Bonn, Germany, 18–20 February 2008; pp. 15–25. [Google Scholar]
- Resnick, M.; Martin, F.; Berg, R.; Borovoy, R.; Colella, V.; Kramer, K.; Silverman, B. Digital Manipulatives: New Toys to Think with. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Los Angeles, CA, USA, 18–23 April 1998; pp. 281–287. [Google Scholar]
- Zuckerman, O.; Arida, S.; Resnick, M. Extending Tangible Interfaces for Education: Digital Montessori-inspired Manipulatives. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Portland, OR, USA, 2–7 April 2005; pp. 859–868. [Google Scholar]
- Raffle, H.; Parkes, A.; Ishii, H. Topobo: A Constructive Assembly System with Kinetic Memory. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing, Vienna, Austria, 24–29 April 2004; pp. 647–654. [Google Scholar]
- Jordà, S.; Geiger, G.; Alonso, M.; Kaltenbrunner, M. The reacTable: Exploring the Synergy between Live Music Performance and Tabletop Tangible Interfaces. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Tangible and Embedded Interaction, Baton Rouge, LA, USA, 15–17 February 2007; pp. 139–146. [Google Scholar]
- Dunn, H.N.; Nakano, H.; Gibson, J. Block Jam: A tangible Interface For Interactive Music. In Proceedings of the 2003 Conference on New Interfaces for Musical Expression, Montreal, QC, Canada, 22–24 May 2003; pp. 170–177. [Google Scholar]
- Schiettecatte, B.; Vanderdonckt, J. AudioCubes: A Distributed Cube Tangible Interface Based on Interaction Range for Sound Design. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Tangible and Embedded Interaction, Bonn, Germany, 18–20 February 2008; pp. 3–10. [Google Scholar]
- Couture, N.; Rivière, G.; Reuter, P. GeoTUI: A Tangible User Interface for Geoscience. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Tangible and Embedded Interaction, Bonn, Germany, 18–20 February 2008; pp. 89–96. [Google Scholar]
- Kim, M.J.; Maher, M.L. The impact of tangible user interfaces on spatial cognition during collaborative design. Des. Stud. 2008, 29, 222–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Piper, B.; Ratti, C.; Ishii, H. Illuminating clay: A 3-D Tangible Interface for Landscape Analysis. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Minneapolis, MN, USA, 20–25 April 2002; pp. 355–362. [Google Scholar]
- Norman, D.A. The next UI breakthrough, part 2: Physicality. Interactions 2007, 14, 46–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dourish, P. Where the Action is: The Foundations of Embodied Interaction; MIT Press: Boston, MA, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Kaptelinin, V.; Nardi, B.A. Acting with Technology: Activity Theory and Interaction Design; MIT Press: Boston, MA, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Price, S.; Sheridan, J.G.; Pontual Falcão, T. Action and Representation in Tangible Systems: Implications for Design of Learning Interactions. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction, Cambridge, MA, USA, 24–27 January 2010; pp. 145–152. [Google Scholar]
- Ross, P.R.; Wensveen, S.A. Designing aesthetics of behavior in interaction: Using aesthetic experience as a mechanism for design. Int. J. Des. 2010, 4, 3–13. [Google Scholar]
- Types and Methods of Interviews in Research. Available online: https://www.questionpro.com/blog/types-of-interviews/ (accessed on 4 April 2022).
- Boar, B.H. Application Prototyping: A Requirements Definition Strategy for the 80s; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 1984. [Google Scholar]
- Beaudouin Lafon, M.; Mackay, W.E. Prototyping Tools and Techniques. In Human-Computer Interaction; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2009; pp. 137–160. [Google Scholar]
- McCann, R.M.; Giles, H. Age-differentiated communication in organizations: Perspectives from Thailand and the United States. Commun. Res. Rep. 2007, 24, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lu, L.; Kao, S.F. Attitudes towards old people in Taiwan: Scale development and preliminary evidence of reliability and validity. J. Educ. Psychol. 2009, 32, 147–171. [Google Scholar]
- Minichiello, V.; Aroni, R.; Hays, T. In-Depth Interviewing: Principles, Techniques, Analysis, 3rd ed.; Pearson Australia Group: Frenchs Forest, NSW, Australia, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Lin, J.D.; Yen, C.F.; Chen, M.H. Qualitative research method: Models and steps of interviewing. J. Disabil. Res. 2005, 3, 122–136. [Google Scholar]
- Verplank, B. Interaction Design Sketchbook. Available online: https://www.academia.edu/37121727/Interaction_Design_Sketchbook_by_Bill_Verplank_Frameworks_for_designing_interactive_products_and_systems (accessed on 25 February 2020).
- Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) Test for Sampling Adequacy. Available online: https://www.statisticshowto.datasciencecentral.com/kaiser-meyer-olkin/ (accessed on 16 February 2020).
- KMO and Bartlett’s Test. Available online: https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/SSLVMB_23.0.0/spss/tutorials/fac_telco_kmo_01.html (accessed on 25 February 2020).
- A Guide to Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity. Available online: https://www.statology.org/bartletts-test-of-sphericity/ (accessed on 8 April 2022).
- Cerny, B.A.; Kaiser, H.F. A study of a measure of sampling adequacy for factor-analytic correlation matrices. Multivar. Behav. Res. 1977, 12, 43–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hair, J.F.; Black, W.C.; Babin, B.J. Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global Perspective; Pearson Education: London, UK, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Kaiser, H.F. A second generation little jiffy. Psychometrika 1970, 35, 401–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scott, W.A. Reliability of content analysis: The case of nominal scale coding. Public Opin. Q. 1955, 19, 321–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cronbach, L.J. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 1951, 16, 297–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Taber, K.S. The Use of Cronbach’s alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education. Res. Sci. Educ. 2018, 48, 1273–1296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guilford, J.P. Psychometric Methods, 2nd ed.; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1954. [Google Scholar]
- Ho, Y.; Kwon, O.Y.; Park, S.Y.; Yoon, T.Y.; Kim, Y.-E. Reliability and validity test of the Korean version of Noe’s evaluation. Korean J. Med. Educ. 2017, 29, 15–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bentler, P.M. EQS Structural Equations Program Manual; Multivariate Software Inc.: Encino, CA, USA, 1995; Volume 6. [Google Scholar]
- Fan, X.; Thompson, B.; Wang, L. Effects of sample size, estimation methods, and model specification on structural equation modeling fit indexes. Struct. Equ. Modeling A Multidiscip. J. 1999, 6, 56–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hu, L.T.; Bentler, P.M. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Equ. Modeling A Multidiscip. J. 1999, 6, 1–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- MacCallum, R.C.; Hong, S. Power analysis in covariance structure modeling using GFI and AGFI. Multivar. Behav. Res. 1997, 32, 193–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hair, J.F.; Babin, B.J.; Anderson, R.E.; Black, W.C. Multivariate Data Analysis, 5th ed.; Pearson Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Research Methods Knowledge Base. Available online: https://conjointly.com/kb/?_ga=2.202908566.666445287.1649411337-790067422.1649411337 (accessed on 23 February 2020).
- Chung, M. Encyclopedia of measurement and statistics; SAGE: Southern Oaks, CA, USA, 2007; pp. 189–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Author, Year | Perceived Usefulness | Perceived Ease of Use |
---|---|---|
Benoit et al., 2015 [12] | Memory therapy, which used VR to present images familiar to participants, could effectively stimulate the memories of the elderly. | This case was simulator VR. Users only watched immersive projected images in a confined space similar to VR movies. |
Manera et al., 2016 [13] | VR could be used to treat patients with cognitive impairment and dementia, arousing their interest in therapies. | After wearing 3D glasses, users watched a 3D projection screen and switched among pictures by clicking a mouse. |
MyndVR, 2016 [10] | Immersive experiences that were diverse, meaningful, and interesting were provided to the elderly to slow down their mental aging and treat relevant diseases. | Users could see images by wearing a simple head-mounted VR display without any external operation. |
George and David, 2017 [41] | After performing practical tasks in a 3D VR-based environment, the elderly held a more positive attitude toward VR. | Users wore a head-mounted display and used a controller to move around, and located their hometowns in a 3D street view. |
Rendever, 2018 [11] | A memory therapy that used 3D technology to recreate meaningful scenes or places the elderly want to visit was developed, providing immersive experiences through VR. | Users could see images by wearing a simple head-mounted VR display without any external operation. |
Code | Current Company | Position | Specialty |
---|---|---|---|
P1 | Senior Citizen Learning Center | Director | The elderly’s learning and intergenerational learning |
P2 | Kaohsiung Municipal Jhenchang Elementary School | Homeroom teacher, PhD in adult education | Children’s education and intergenerational learning |
P3 | RUMU Innovation | Founder of a company focused on integrated engaging technologies | Interaction design and technology art |
Dimension | Questions | Answers |
---|---|---|
Importance of intergenerational learning |
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Design of intergenerational learning activities |
|
|
|
| |
Introduction of digital technology to intergenerational learning |
|
|
|
| |
Introduction of VR to intergenerational learning |
|
|
|
|
Gesture 1: Finger Rotation | Gesture 2: Finger Flipping | ||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Position coordinates and angle values of start gesture | Position coordinates and angle values of end gesture | Position coordinates and angle values of start gesture | Position coordinates and angle values of end gesture | ||||||||||||
x | y | z | W | x’ | y’ | z’ | w’ | x | y | z | w | x’ | y’ | z’ | w’ |
0.3 | 0.8 | −0.5 | 0.0 | 0.8 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 0.0 | −0.7 | 0.1 | 0.7 | 0.5 | −0.5 | 0.6 | 0.5 |
Quaternion formula: q = ((x, y, z), θ) = (u, θ) | |||||||||||||||
q = ((0.3, 0.8, −0.5), 0.0) | q’ = ((0.8, 0.5, 0.0), 0.5) | q = ((0.0, −0.7, 0.1), 0.7) | q’ = ((0.5, −0.5, 0.6), 0.5) |
Instrument Name | Device | Volume Value (dB) |
---|---|---|
Drum | 30–37 | |
Gong | 40–48 |
Code | Gesture and Corresponding Icon | Operator and Corresponding Attack in Animation | Animation Scenario and Display on the Screens | Explanations about the Gesture |
---|---|---|---|---|
A | Gesture 1: Finger rotation as depicted in the icon image Icon: | Operator: The participant on the procenium Attack 1: Turn-causing attack | Scenario: The “Good Man” in white gets close to the “Evil Person” in brown to attack him, causing him to turn his body around. Display: |
|
B | Gesture 2: Finger flipping as depicted in the icon image Icon: | Operator: The participant on the procenium Attack 2: Flip-causing attack | Scenario: The “Good Man” in white gets close to the “Evil Person” in brown to attack him, causing him to flip his body up. Display: |
|
C | Gesture 3: Drum beating Icon: | Operator: The participant backstage Attack 3: Hot-palm-wind attack with yellow light | Scenario: The “Good Man” in white pushes a hot palm wind with yellow light toward the “Evil Person” in brown, to incur an internal injury in him. Display: |
|
D | Gesture 4: Gong beating Icon: | Operator: The participant backstage Attack 4: Cold-palm-wind attack with blue light | Scenario: The “Good Man” in white pushes a cold palm wind with blue light toward the “Evil Person” in brown, to incur an internal injury in him. Display: |
|
Stage No. | Illustration of Intermediate Result | Interaction | Involved Interaction Device | Explanation | Corresponding State in Algorithm 3 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | B: Complete drum beating twice (detected by sound sensing) | Drum |
| START state | ||
2 | a | b | A: View the icon appearing in the headset screen (one of the four ones on the left) | VIVE headset |
| GAME state |
c | d | |||||
3 | A: Complete the finger-rotation gesture (verified by gesture detection) | Leap Motion |
| Gesture stateof the finger-rotation gesture | ||
4 | A: Complete the finger-flipping gesture (verified by gesture detection) | Leap Motion |
| Gesture statefor the finger-flip gesture | ||
5 | B: Conduct drum beating repetitively. (verified by sound detection) | Drum |
| Drum state | ||
6 | B: Conduct gone beating repetitively. (verified by sound detection) | Gong |
| Gong state | ||
7 | A and B: View the game-play result (one of the three awards) | VIVE headset and system screens |
| RESULT state for s > 48 | ||
8 | Same as 7 | Same as 7 | Same as 7. | RESULT state for 24 < s ≤ 48 | ||
9 | Same as 7 | Same as 7 | Same as 7. | RESULT state for s ≤ 24 |
Basic Data | Categories | Samples | Percentage |
---|---|---|---|
Groups | Ederly | 57 | 50% |
Children | 57 | 50% | |
Sex | Male | 45 | 39% |
Female | 69 | 61% | |
Age | 5–14 | 51 | 45% |
15–24 | 6 | 5% | |
55–64 | 11 | 10% | |
65–74 | 30 | 26% | |
75–84 | 14 | 12% | |
85–94 | 2 | 2% | |
Living together | Yes | 43 | 38% |
No | 71 | 62% | |
Having VR experience | Yes | 34 | 30% |
No | 80 | 70% |
No. | Question | Min | Max | Mean | Standard Deviation |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
S1 | During the interaction, my grandparents/grandchildren gave me support. | 1 | 5 | 4.44 | 0.787 |
S2 | During the interaction, my grandparents/grandchildren gave me help. | 1 | 5 | 4.37 | 0.885 |
S3 | During the interaction, my grandparents/grandchildren gave me useful suggestions. | 1 | 5 | 4.23 | 0.996 |
S4 | During the interaction, my grandparents/grandchildren outperformed me. | 1 | 5 | 4.20 | 1.015 |
S5 | During the interaction, my grandparents/grandchildren were more knowledgeable than I was. | 1 | 5 | 4.22 | 1.028 |
S6 | During the interaction, my grandparents/grandchildren were more skilled at operation than I was. | 1 | 5 | 4.09 | 0.974 |
S7 | I would keep silent if I disagreed with my grandparents/grandchildren during the interaction. | 1 | 5 | 3.87 | 1.156 |
S8 | During the interaction, I refrained from arguing with my grandparents/grandchildren. | 1 | 5 | 4.11 | 1.092 |
S9 | During the interaction, I would reserve my opinions. | 1 | 5 | 4.07 | 1.028 |
Average | 4.17 | ||||
T1 | During the interaction, I think my grandparents were kind. | 1 | 5 | 4.42 | 0.885 |
T2 | During the interaction, I think my grandparents were clever. | 1 | 5 | 4.30 | 0.823 |
T3 | During the interaction, I think my grandparents were physically healthy. | 1 | 5 | 4.35 | 0.896 |
T4 | During the interaction, I think my grandparents were interesting. | 1 | 5 | 4.32 | 0.929 |
T5 | During the interaction, I think my grandparents were calm. | 1 | 5 | 4.23 | 0.926 |
T6 | During the interaction, I think my grandparents were very interested in learning something new. | 1 | 5 | 4.11 | 1.145 |
T7 | During the interaction, I think my grandparents always seemed happy. | 1 | 5 | 4.42 | 0.925 |
T8 | During the interaction, I think my grandparents were trustworthy. | 1 | 5 | 4.40 | 0.821 |
T9 | During the interaction, I think my grandparents were experienced. | 1 | 5 | 4.35 | 0.973 |
T10 | During the interaction, I think my grandparents could impart me lots of knowledge. | 1 | 5 | 4.33 | 1.041 |
T11 | During the interaction, I think that my grandparents could empathize with me. | 1 | 5 | 4.30 | 0.999 |
T12 | During the interaction, I could get along well with my grandparents. | 1 | 5 | 4.44 | 0.846 |
T13 | During the interaction, I think that my grandparents were willing to keep learning. | 1 | 5 | 4.18 | 1.002 |
T14 | During the interaction, I think my grandparents were willing to do what they were interested in. | 1 | 5 | 4.44 | 0.846 |
T15 | During the interaction, I think my grandparents could prove their abilities. | 1 | 5 | 4.33 | 0.932 |
Average | 4.33 |
No. | Strongly Agree (5 Scores) (A) | Agree (4 Scores) (B) | No Opinion (3 Scores) (C) | Disagree (2 Scores) (D) | Strongly Disagree (1 Scores) (E) | Percentage of Agreements (F = A + B) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
S1 | 57.0 | 33.3 | 7.9 | 0.0 | 1.8 | 90.3 |
S2 | 55.3 | 32.5 | 8.8 | 0.9 | 2.6 | 87.8 |
S3 | 49.1 | 35.1 | 8.8 | 3.5 | 3.5 | 84.2 |
S4 | 50.9 | 28.1 | 14.0 | 4.4 | 2.6 | 79.0 |
S5 | 52.6 | 28.1 | 9.6 | 7.9 | 1.8 | 80.7 |
S6 | 41.2 | 35.1 | 16.7 | 5.3 | 1.8 | 76.3 |
S7 | 35.1 | 36.0 | 15.8 | 7.0 | 6.1 | 71.1 |
S8 | 44.7 | 36.0 | 9.6 | 4.4 | 5.3 | 80.7 |
S9 | 40.4 | 37.7 | 14.9 | 2.6 | 4.4 | 78.1 |
Average | 80.9 | |||||
T1 | 61.4 | 24.6 | 10.5 | 1.8 | 1.8 | 86.0 |
T2 | 47.4 | 38.6 | 12.3 | 0.0 | 1.8 | 86.0 |
T3 | 56.1 | 28.1 | 12.3 | 1.8 | 1.8 | 84.2 |
T4 | 54.4 | 29.8 | 10.5 | 3.5 | 1.8 | 84.2 |
T5 | 47.4 | 35.1 | 12.3 | 3.5 | 1.8 | 82.5 |
T6 | 50.9 | 22.8 | 17.5 | 3.5 | 5.3 | 73.7 |
T7 | 63.2 | 22.8 | 8.8 | 3.5 | 1.8 | 86.0 |
T8 | 56.1 | 31.6 | 10.5 | 0.0 | 1.8 | 87.7 |
T9 | 57.9 | 28.1 | 8.8 | 1.8 | 3.5 | 86.0 |
T10 | 63.2 | 15.8 | 15.8 | 1.8 | 3.5 | 79.0 |
T11 | 57.9 | 21.1 | 17.5 | 0.0 | 3.5 | 79.0 |
T12 | 61.4 | 24.6 | 12.3 | 0.0 | 1.8 | 86.0 |
T13 | 50.9 | 22.8 | 21.1 | 3.5 | 1.8 | 73.7 |
T14 | 61.4 | 24.6 | 12.3 | 0.0 | 1.8 | 86.0 |
T15 | 57.9 | 22.8 | 15.8 | 1.8 | 1.8 | 80.7 |
Average | 82.7 |
Scale | Name of Measure or Test | Value | |
---|---|---|---|
GPIC Scale | KMO measure of sampling adequacy | 0.841 | |
Bartlett’s test of sphericity | Approx. chi-square | 629.871 | |
Degree of freedom | 36 | ||
Significance | 0 | ||
Elderly’s Attitude Scale | KMO measure of sampling adequacy | 0.933 | |
Bartlett’s test of sphericity | Approx. chi-square | 1005.343 | |
Degree of freedom | 120 | ||
Significance | 0 |
No. | Question Dimension (Scale) | ||
---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | |
S2 | 0.902 | 0.196 | 0.177 |
S1 | 0.871 | 0.183 | 0.188 |
S3 | 0.812 | 0.337 | 0.142 |
S6 | 0.117 | 0.837 | 0.334 |
S4 | 0.300 | 0.815 | 0.207 |
S5 | 0.346 | 0.814 | 0.179 |
S7 | −0.0021 | 0.322 | 0.843 |
S8 | 0.316 | 0.082 | 0.817 |
S9 | 0.252 | 0.294 | 0.721 |
No. | Question Dimension (Scale) | ||
---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | |
T4 | 0.812 | 0.251 | 0.234 |
T3 | 0.792 | 0.391 | 0.370 |
T2 | 0.703 | 0.543 | 0.256 |
T1 | 0.689 | 0.324 | 0.536 |
T5 | 0.687 | 0.298 | 0.498 |
T8 | 0.643 | 0.545 | 0.308 |
T13 | 0.435 | 0.787 | 0.188 |
T6 | 0.222 | 0.783 | 0.385 |
T7 | 0.261 | 0.691 | 0.501 |
T14 | 0.530 | 0.674 | 0.267 |
T15 | 0.367 | 0.628 | 0.394 |
T12 | 0.451 | 0.580 | 0.532 |
T9 | 0.355 | 0.364 | 0.832 |
T10 | 0.410 | 0.410 | 0.772 |
No. | Question Dimension | Question | Min | Max | Mean | S.D. |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
S2 | Accommodation (Group FS1) | During the interaction, my grandparents/grandchildren gave me help. | 1 | 5 | 4.37 | 0.885 |
S1 | During the interaction, my grandparents/grandchildren gave me support. | 1 | 5 | 4.44 | 0.787 | |
S3 | During the interaction, my grandparents/grandchildren gave me useful suggestions. | 1 | 5 | 4.23 | 0.996 | |
S6 | Nonaccommodation (Group FS2) | During the interaction, my grandparents/grandchildren were more skilled at operation than I was. | 1 | 5 | 4.09 | 0.974 |
S4 | During the interaction, my grandparents/grandchildren outperformed me. | 1 | 5 | 4.20 | 1.015 | |
S5 | During the interaction, my grandparents/grandchildren were more knowledgeable than I was. | 1 | 5 | 4.22 | 1.028 | |
S7 | Avoidance (Group FS3) | I would keep silent if I disagreed with my grandparents/grandchildren during the interaction. | 1 | 5 | 3.87 | 1.156 |
S8 | During the interaction, I refrained from arguing with my grandparents/grandchildren. | 1 | 5 | 4.11 | 1.092 | |
S9 | During the interaction, I would reserve my opinions. | 1 | 5 | 4.07 | 1.028 | |
Average | 4.17 | |||||
T4 | Psychological cognition (Group FT1) | During the interaction, I think my grandparents were interesting. | 1 | 5 | 4.32 | 0.929 |
T3 | During the interaction, I think my grandparents were physically healthy. | 1 | 5 | 4.35 | 0.896 | |
T2 | During the interaction, I think my grandparents were clever. | 1 | 5 | 4.30 | 0.823 | |
T1 | During the interaction, I think my grandparents were kind. | 1 | 5 | 4.42 | 0.885 | |
T5 | During the interaction, I think my grandparents were calm. | 1 | 5 | 4.23 | 0.926 | |
T8 | During the interaction, I think my grandparents were trust-worthy. | 1 | 5 | 4.40 | 0.821 | |
T13 | Social engagement (Group FT2) | During the interaction, I think that my grandparents were willing to keep learning. | 1 | 5 | 4.18 | 1.002 |
T6 | During the interaction, I think my grandparents were very interested in learning something new. | 1 | 5 | 4.11 | 1.145 | |
T7 | During the interaction, I think my grandparents always seemed happy. | 1 | 5 | 4.42 | 0.925 | |
T14 | During the interaction, I think my grandparents were willing to do what they were interested in. | 1 | 5 | 4.44 | 0.846 | |
T15 | During the interaction, I think my grandparents could prove their abilities. | 1 | 5 | 4.33 | 0.932 | |
T12 | During the interaction, I could get along well with my grandparents. | 1 | 5 | 4.44 | 0.846 | |
T9 | Life experience (Group FT3) | During the interaction, I think my grandparents were experienced. | 1 | 5 | 4.35 | 0.973 |
T10 | During the interaction, I think my grandparents could impart me lots of knowledge. | 1 | 5 | 4.33 | 1.041 | |
Average | 4.33 |
Indicator | Question Dimension (Scale) | Cronbach’s α Coefficient of the Question Dimension | Cronbach’s α Coefficient of the Indicator |
---|---|---|---|
GPIC | Accommodation (Group FS1) | 0.896 | 0.888 |
Non-accommodation (Group FS2) | 0.877 | ||
Avoidance (Group FS3) | 0.805 | ||
The elderly’s attitude | Psychological cognition (Group FT1) | 0.953 | 0.971 |
Social engagement (Group FT2) | 0.936 | ||
Life experience (Group FT3) | 0.959 |
Scale | df | χ2/ | χ2/df | agfi | cfi | RMSEA | RMSEA (90% CI) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
LO | HI | |||||||
GPIC Scale | 24 | 60.112 | 2.505 | 0.810 | 0.941 | 0.115 | 0.079 | 0.152 |
Elderly’s Attitude Scale | 74 | 102.299 | 1.382 | 0.727 | 0.968 | 0.830 | 0.037 | 0.101 |
Indicator | Question Dimension (Scale) | Group of Related Questions | Construct Validity Value |
---|---|---|---|
GPIC | Accommodation (Group FS1) | FS1 = (S2, S1, S3) | 0.805 |
Nonaccommodation (Group FS2) | FS2 = (S6, S4, S5) | 0.748 | |
Avoidance (Group FS3) | FS3 = (S7, S8, S9) | 0.606 | |
The elderly’s attitudes | Psychological cognition (Group FT1) | FT1 = (T4, T3, T2, T1, T5, T8) | 0.955 |
Social engagement (Group FT2) | FT2 = (T13, T6, T7, T14, T15, T12) | 0.939 | |
Life experience (Group FT3) | FT3 = (T9, T10) | 0.960 |
Question Dimension (Scale) | N | Average Mean | Standard Deviation |
---|---|---|---|
Accommodation | 114 | 4.35 | 0.889 |
Nonaccommodation | 114 | 4.17 | 1.006 |
Avoidance | 114 | 4.02 | 1.092 |
Psychological cognition | 57 | 4.34 | 0.88 |
Social engagement | 57 | 4.32 | 0.95 |
Life experience | 57 | 4.34 | 1.00 |
Question Dimension (Scale) | Strongly Agree | Agree | No Opinion | Disagree | Strongly Disagree |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Accommodation | 53.80 | 33.60 | 8.50 | 1.47 | 2.63 |
Nonaccommodation | 48.23 | 30.43 | 13.43 | 5.87 | 2.07 |
Avoidance | 40.07 | 36.57 | 13.43 | 4.67 | 5.27 |
Psychological cognition | 53.80 | 31.30 | 11.40 | 1.76 | 1.80 |
Social engagement | 57.61 | 23.40 | 14.60 | 2.05 | 2.83 |
Life experience | 60.55 | 21.95 | 12.30 | 1.80 | 3.50 |
Aspect | Questions | Answers |
---|---|---|
System operation (DO) |
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Feeling of experiencing the system (FEEL) |
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Communication of emotion and experience (KNOW) |
|
|
|
|
Item | Findings |
---|---|
Analysis of the indicator of GPIC | During the interaction, the grandparents and grandchildren were friendly and kind to each other, and recognized each other’s strengths. Furthermore, when the two parties had different opinions, they would still acknowledge each other’s advantages and friendliness. |
Analysis of the elderly’s attitudes | During the interaction, the grandparents were psychologically reliable to the children, and were kind, smart, and happy as felt by the children psychologically. Furthermore, the children had a positive psychological and cognitive perception of their grandparents. |
Analysis of interviews with participants | The participants found the operations of the gong and the drum more intuitive and easier to understand. While the children preferred operating the gong and the drum to performing VR actions, the grandparents learned puppetry more quickly than the grandchildren, and could impart more knowledge to them about puppetry. |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Wang, C.-M.; Shao, C.-H.; Han, C.-E. Construction of a Tangible VR-Based Interactive System for Intergenerational Learning. Sustainability 2022, 14, 6067. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14106067
Wang C-M, Shao C-H, Han C-E. Construction of a Tangible VR-Based Interactive System for Intergenerational Learning. Sustainability. 2022; 14(10):6067. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14106067
Chicago/Turabian StyleWang, Chao-Ming, Cheng-Hao Shao, and Cheng-En Han. 2022. "Construction of a Tangible VR-Based Interactive System for Intergenerational Learning" Sustainability 14, no. 10: 6067. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14106067